About your Search

20110725
20110725
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
in afghanistan. the pentagon says funds from a $2.1 billion trucking contract to get supplies to american troops were funneled to the militants. a pentagon spokesman says a new contract will be awarded and applicants will be more thoroughly vetted. >>> we have an update tonight on the u.s. government law enforcement initiative that allowed guns to fall into the hands of mexican criminals. we have an exclusive report on some of the buyers in operation fast and furious. >> it's a lot of guns. that was the first thing that came into mind. >> this attorney represents manuel acosta, the man accused of recruiting 19 straw buyers later indicted for smuggling guns to mexico. >> they walk into a store, fill out a form, they buy a couple of rifles and walk out and give it to the guy. he gives them a few hundred bucks. >> to purchase a gun every buyer fills out this form. it asks, have you ever been indicted for a felony, been charged with a crime that allows for a year in jail? are you subject to a restraining order? the gun stores forwards that to the fbi, which then approves, denies or delays the purcha
drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is ph
afghanistan is also winding down and that's the trillion dollars they thought they'd save but they don't list anything with the harry reid plan and not to look at entitlements, how could you possibly say we're taking a hard look and making tough decision abouts the future of our -- of the country economically and not look at entitlements when even the president of the united states has had a problem. let's look at john boehner. he says, all right, i'll raise the debt ceiling. this is what i mean by a two phased plan. just a trillion dollars and we'll have $1.2 trillion in cuts by the end of the year. the future cuts will be commissioned and sent up after they commission a bipartisan panel to decide, you know, republicans or democrats to decide which will be cut and what shouldn't. >> and apparently, it would be along the lines of the cut, cap and balance as you can see right there. here is something that speaker boehner said why he cannot support the democrats' plan. he said the administration says they need all of the increase up front so he doesn't have to deal with this until after the ele
are not really new but simply counting the saving from the wind down of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. senate republicans say reid was with them on a two-step increase process, but that the white house shot that down. and the white house says it's all up to boehner to find a way forward. now, pressure is mounting, so is anxiety over the markets. here's white house chief of staff bill daley on "meet the press" yesterday. >> we are now getting to a point where i think markets around the world will question whether the political system in washington can come together and compromise for the greater good of the. >> country. >> the new fear. a downgrade in america's credit rating even if a debt creeling is raised. if only for six or nine months if it looks like washington can't figure out a long-term debt and deficit issue. by the way, something else going on here. the white house is basically out of the talks. harry reid is proxy for the white house. there isn't much communication going on between house republicans and the white house. it looked like yesterday morning that might not be the case. r
and afghanistan. republicans say the markets might not buy that but the same accounting tool was used in the republican budget that passed the house. jon: interesting to that the secretary of state commenting on tkphes particular spending matter. thank you. jenna: the lack of debt deal seems to be one of the factors in the stock market as wendell was talking about. the dow trading down by 60 points . it was down by over a hundred earlier. simon constable is a columnist for the "wall street journal." what is your take? we talk about the reassurance for the market? what about the reassurance for the average investor. >> most of the markets are saying whatever. but the gold market isn't. we've seen gold come up from 1500 a month ago to over 1600 now. jenna: what does that tell you. >> people don't buy golds as a good investment. you have to pay money to have it stored, buy insurance, put it in a bank, with armed guards and people are basically big thumb's down to the u.s. government when they buy gold. you shouldn't be totally reassured. that is quite a move in that sort of short period
the following. you could eliminate all the bush/obama tax cuts. you could pull out of iraq, afghanistan and southwest asia tomorrow. you could end up eliminating all congressional earmarks and you could eliminate all foreign aid which people think is a big number but it's not, that's about 15 to 20% of the problem. the government has grown too big, promised too much, waited too long to restructure. yes, we're going to have to have more revenues as compared to historical levels but we need to go about it in an intelligent way that will make our system fairer, more equitable, more comparative and it will promote job growth and promote innovation. last i think this, on the comeback america initiative, preemptive framework, there's an additional $500 billion for critical investments over the next two years in order to help the economic recovery and to deal with unemployment. nonetheless, the net spending reductions over the next 10 years are over 3 trillion. so, yes, we need to do some things to make sure we recover and get unemployment down but if we don't end up putting our finances in or
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)